Monday, May 19, 2014

Stanford v. Tennessee Valley Authority case brief summary

oPermissive joinder case regarding fumes released into the air by multiple companies and potentially causing harm.

oWhy did they really want to join the defendants?

·Prevent Empty chair defense:
If they can only sue one defendant, the defendant is going to point the
finger at the other defendant who is not a participant in the trial.

·By the same token, the defendants would want this case severed in order to be able to take advantage of this defense

oCourt finds that there is misjoinder b/c these events did not flow from the same transactions or occurrences.

·The plants were separately owned and operated, and different distances from the P

·They are not joint tortfeasors acting in concert.

·Rule 20 joinder was impermissibleà No, commonality. Both doing their own thing.

·Under Rule 21, misjoinder is not grounds for dismissal; thus, the claims can be severed.

·However, under Rule 42, the Court can consolidate actions if they involve “common questions of law or fact”

·Here, the judge found that Rule 42 was satisfied and ordered a joint trial although the claims were severed

·Rationale: there was a mixed question of law and fact common to both Defs.

·Also,
it was conceivable that other issues, common to both parties, may arise
after the answers are filed, or after a further development of the case

·Joint
trial also had many advantages in that it saved trial time, and allowed
the use of the same witnesses and evidence to determine culpability

·Stanford Discussion

oProf: Real
reason why the Court allowed a joint trial is because such an order
will preserve to each defendant the procedural advantages of a separate
trial, including preemptory challenges of jurors

oNote the inherent issue with this case b/c there wasn’t an actual consolidation

·The Court used Rule 42 ONLY to order a joint trial. Thus, P has one trial but two separate Ds.

·Normally
under Rule 42, a real consolidation would mean discovery is also
shared. Here, the discovery of the parties will be separate and each D
would not be privy to the discovery that the P’s counsel gleaned from
the other D

Buy and Sell Stock for Free

Disclaimer: This is an affiliate link. I have been a member for well over a year and have found this app to be excellent. A great way to get into day trading or making some extra wealth while in law school.

ShareThis

.

I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook.

All the information on this site is constantly updated and edited. Furthermore, if you have any outlines you want to share, so that others, free of charge, may benefit, please send those to be posted here. Likewise, if you have case briefs you would like to share, please send them to [email protected].

Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law. These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. If you have any questions about these materials, or any other legal questions, you should consult an attorney who is a member of the bar of the state you reside in.